|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 29, 2006 8:23:53 GMT -5
I agree Lady, I think it was public opinion. There are a whole host of issues I would raise with the evidence - there is one question I would ask that reports over here don't clarify; why were LP's head and limbs missing? It seems extraordinary that sea life would have gone for the main identifying features of the body for ID purposes, don't you think? Was the issue ever determined in the course of the trial? I could understand organs withering away in time but whole limbs seems extraordinary.
Also, were there no witnesses placing SP at a particular point fishing for a particular period? I guess the time of the season made it less likely. You see that doesn't add up either - someone so careful about removing all forensic evidence of a crime, would surely sort out a more solid alibi than 'I went and fished just where the bodies now turn up and no, there were no witnesses cos I chose the quietest period of the season to fish'.
Have there been suggestions that the judge erred in not advising the jury to discount any of the prosection evidence? I think that would have been more than likely in the UK anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Aug 29, 2006 10:49:39 GMT -5
I agree Lady, I think it was public opinion. There are a whole host of issues I would raise with the evidence - there is one question I would ask that reports over here don't clarify; why were LP's head and limbs missing? It seems extraordinary that sea life would have gone for the main identifying features of the body for ID purposes, don't you think? Was the issue ever determined in the course of the trial? I could understand organs withering away in time but whole limbs seems extraordinary. Also, were there no witnesses placing SP at a particular point fishing for a particular period? I guess the time of the season made it less likely. You see that doesn't add up either - someone so careful about removing all forensic evidence of a crime, would surely sort out a more solid alibi than 'I went and fished just where the bodies now turn up and no, there were no witnesses cos I chose the quietest period of the season to fish'. Have there been suggestions that the judge erred in not advising the jury to discount any of the prosection evidence? I think that would have been more than likely in the UK anyway. Truthfully, I haven't followed this case at all except to see a TV or newspaper report from time to time, but now, reading what you've all said, it seems uncannily like the Capano case. |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 30, 2006 7:09:33 GMT -5
Hi Skyloom,
Glad to see you stopping in this section..... I am not familiar with the Capano case... can you tell me what happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 30, 2006 12:16:30 GMT -5
Hi Skyloom, Glad to see you stopping in this section..... I am not familiar with the Capano case... can you tell me what happened? Most interesting. Thomas Capano killed his girlfriend Marie Anne Fahey for the 'crime' of leaving him. He dumped her body at sea from his cabin cruiser. Anne Marie Fahey << LINK What makes this interesting is that, unlike the allegations against Scott, he dumped her body well out at sea, dumped it from a large boat, needed help to dump it, the body was never found, and there was actual evidence of guilt. This was a reasonable plan. The Peterson prosecution's theory was ludicrous and only the most gullible would accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by kaytristensnana on Sept 23, 2006 14:11:12 GMT -5
Scott Peterson is LEGALLY innocent of the murders of Laci and Connor;and, MORALLY GUILTY of adultery.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaytristensnana on Sept 23, 2006 18:32:08 GMT -5
Scott will get a new trial because the taped conservations between Amber and Scott were illegal. It's called wire tapping. The second that Amber became an agent of the MPD, Scott should have been read his rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 23, 2006 23:54:07 GMT -5
Scott Peterson is LEGALLY innocent of the murders of Laci and Connor;and, MORALLY GUILTY of adultery. And adultery has no relationship to murder. Of every 100,000 husbands, 70,000 or more will commit adultery. Of every 100,000 husbands or male partners, 7 will kill a pregnant wife or girlfriend. Those most in danger are the young, the unmarried, those trying to end the relationship and those of color. Laci doesn't fit any of these. Those who kill are distributed over the adulterers and the non-adulterers. There is no causal connection. Alfred Kinsey's famous 1948 survey of American sexual behavior found that seven out of 10 men had cheated on their wives. Other surveys give numbers from 20% to 80% (methodology seems to be key here).
A tiny list (some are 'alleged') of supposed or actual adulterers -
Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston (Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Albert Einstein.
Albert Pirro (Husband of Westchester D.A. Jeannine Pirro).
Army Maj. Gen. John Longhouser (Head of the Aberdeen Proving Ground)
Bill Clinton.
Bill O'Reilly (or did he just try?)
Bob Barr.
Bob Dole.
Brad Pitt.
Burt Reynolds.
Charlie Sheen.
Clarence Darrow (famous lawyer).
Dan Burton.
David Westin (President of ABC News)
Eddie Fisher.
Eddie Murphy.
Eric Benet (husband of Halle Berry - this should end all arguments).
Errol Flynn.
Ethan Hawke.
Frank Gifford (husband of Kathie Lee).
Garner Ted Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God).
Gary Condit.
Gary Hart.
Hugh Grant.
Jesse Jackson.
Jim Bakker.
Jimmy Swaggart.
John F. Kennedy.
John Walsh (America's Most Wanted).
Jude Law.
King David.
Kobe Bryant.
Magic Johnson.
Marc Anthony.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Michael Deaver.
Michael Jordan.
Michael Kennedy.
Mike Bowers.
Mike Tyson.
Muhammad Ali.
Newt Gingrich.
Peter Cook (husband of Christie Brinkley - idiot!)
Prince Charles.
Robert Kennedy.
Robert L Livingston (House Speaker-elect & Rep.)
Roger Clinton.
Rudolph Giuliani.
Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney (The Army's top enlisted soldier)
Spencer Tracy.
Strom Thurmond.
T-Boz
Thomas Jefferson.
Usher (pop star) |
|
|
|
Post by texasgirl on Sept 28, 2006 17:42:29 GMT -5
Scott will get a new trial because the taped conservations between Amber and Scott were illegal. It's called wire tapping. The second that Amber became an agent of the MPD, Scott should have been read his rights. Well, it should have been illegal to play all those tapes in court anyway, they never proved a thing, and had no evidentiary value. Except to make the jury hate him even more. Do you think the issue with the taped calls will enter into the appeal? |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 28, 2006 23:19:29 GMT -5
Scott Peterson is LEGALLY innocent of the murders of Laci and Connor;and, MORALLY GUILTY of adultery. And adultery has no relationship to murder. Of every 100,000 husbands, 70,000 or more will commit adultery. Of every 100,000 husbands or male partners, 7 will kill a pregnant wife or girlfriend. Those most in danger are the young, the unmarried, those trying to end the relationship and those of color. Laci doesn't fit any of these. Those who kill are distributed over the adulterers and the non-adulterers. There is no causal connection. Alfred Kinsey's famous 1948 survey of American sexual behavior found that seven out of 10 men had cheated on their wives. Other surveys give numbers from 20% to 80% (methodology seems to be key here).
A tiny list (some are 'alleged') of supposed or actual adulterers -
Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston (Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Albert Einstein.
Albert Pirro (Husband of Westchester D.A. Jeannine Pirro).
Army Maj. Gen. John Longhouser (Head of the Aberdeen Proving Ground)
Bill Clinton.
Bill O'Reilly (or did he just try?)
Bob Barr.
Bob Dole.
Brad Pitt.
Burt Reynolds.
Charlie Sheen.
Clarence Darrow (famous lawyer).
Dan Burton.
David Westin (President of ABC News)
Eddie Fisher.
Eddie Murphy.
Eric Benet (husband of Halle Berry - this should end all arguments).
Errol Flynn.
Ethan Hawke.
Frank Gifford (husband of Kathie Lee).
Garner Ted Armstrong (Worldwide Church of God).
Gary Condit.
Gary Hart.
Hugh Grant.
Jesse Jackson.
Jim Bakker.
Jimmy Swaggart.
John F. Kennedy.
John Walsh (America's Most Wanted).
Jude Law.
King David.
Kobe Bryant.
Magic Johnson.
Marc Anthony.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Michael Deaver.
Michael Jordan.
Michael Kennedy.
Mike Bowers.
Mike Tyson.
Muhammad Ali.
Newt Gingrich.
Peter Cook (husband of Christie Brinkley - idiot!)
Prince Charles.
Robert Kennedy.
Robert L Livingston (House Speaker-elect & Rep.)
Roger Clinton.
Rudolph Giuliani.
Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney (The Army's top enlisted soldier)
Spencer Tracy.
Strom Thurmond.
T-Boz
Thomas Jefferson.
Usher (pop star) The surprising one on this list is John Walsh! He doesn't seem like the type to do that, and its surprising someone would be seduced by him! |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 29, 2006 12:28:17 GMT -5
The surprising one on this list is John Walsh! He doesn't seem like the type to do that, and its surprising someone would be seduced by him! What guy is married to Halle Berry and can't keep it in his pants? What guy is married to Christie Brinkley and wants to get it on with a very average looking teenage girl who isn't interested in him? You can't relate adultery to murder statistically - or logically, except for the married man who kills his pregnant girlfriend perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 30, 2006 21:31:12 GMT -5
The surprising one on this list is John Walsh! He doesn't seem like the type to do that, and its surprising someone would be seduced by him! What guy is married to Halle Berry and can't keep it in his pants? What guy is married to Christie Brinkley and wants to get it on with a very average looking teenage girl who isn't interested in him? You can't relate adultery to murder statistically - or logically, except for the married man who kills his pregnant girlfriend perhaps. Your right, there is no connection at all between adultry and murder that I have ever heard of. John Walsh being on the list is still the funniest. Its hard to believe all his talk about petifiles would be alluring to a woman. Not that I dont respect his cause. |
|
|
|
Post by mactheknife on Oct 1, 2006 12:25:58 GMT -5
It was John's wife, Reve, who had been having an affair that ended shortly before their son, Adam, disappeared. She told LE about it right away. Both John and Reve were cleared of suspicion in their son's disappearance by "extensive lie detector tests" and telling everything they knew.
Scott would have done himself a better service by being upfront with MPD right away about Amber. He should have taken a LDT, even if it was an independent one. Sometimes just the willingness and the action of taking one will make you look a heck of a lot LESS suspicious to LE and everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 1, 2006 14:18:07 GMT -5
... Scott would have done himself a better service by being upfront with MPD right away about Amber. He should have taken a LDT, even if it was an independent one. Sometimes just the willingness and the action of taking one will make you look a heck of a lot LESS suspicious to LE and everyone else. would have made Brocchini deviate from his objective of getting Scott whatever it took. Don't forget that Scott WAS going to take a LDT and Brocchini deliberately sabotaged that. |
|
|
|
Post by mactheknife on Oct 1, 2006 17:00:07 GMT -5
How did he sabotage him? By showing up outside the place? Scott should have taken it anyway. After all, it can't be used in the court of law and MPD already had him pegged for the crime, as you assert. What did he have to lose? Especially if he was innocent.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 1, 2006 22:43:56 GMT -5
How did he sabotage him? By showing up outside the place? Scott should have taken it anyway. After all, it can't be used in the court of law and MPD already had him pegged for the crime, as you assert. What did he have to lose? Especially if he was innocent. Yes, by showing up outside the place. Scott told Amber he would take a lie detector test for her at that independent place. He gets to the place only to discover that Amber had the police in on the whole thing, and he was there waiting for Scott. Now that would catch anybody off guard, and piss them off enough to walk away and back out of it, as Scott did. It showed him that Amber had betrayed him and was scared of him now. He was planning on meeting Amber there, not the police. It shook him up to find out that she had the police in on it. That sounds understandable to me. |
|
